F/® 15/5
AO- A 041 *31 ARMY LOGISTICS EVALUATION A6ENCY NEW CUMBERLAND PA
REVIEW OPERATIONAL READINESS FLOAT (ORF) CONCEPT. <U>
JUN 77 R J ASTOR* R M ShEAFFER
UNCLASSIFIED Z60144 NL
*
♦
/IDA 041 4
■
Review
Operational Readiness Float
(ORF)
Concept
Department of the Army
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics
U. S. Army Logistics Evaluation Agency
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. 17070 y
D
JUNE 1977
Description of the Publishing Agency
The U.S. Army Logistics Evaluation Agency (USALEA), New Cumberland Army Depot,
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, was officially redesignated as the successor organization to
the U.S. Army Logistics Doctrine, Systems and Readiness Agency (USALDSRA)on 1 July 1973.
A Staff Support Agency of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Department of the Army (DA
DCSLOG), USALEA is functionally organized into three divisions: Logistic Policy, Plans and
Forces Division, Logistic Operations and Readiness Division, Integrated Logistic Support
Division. The overall mission of USALEA is to assist DA DCSLOG in the execution of his general
staff responsibilities for development and supervision of the Army logistics organization and
system. The following are specific missions:
a. Assist the DCSLOG in providing logistic master planning and guidance in the form of
policies, principles, concepts, objectives, and priorities to all elements of the Army.
b. Assist the DCSLOG in review and validation of logistic analyses by application of opera-
tions research and systems analysis (OR/SA) techniques.
c. Assist the DCSLOG in the evaluation of the logistic portion of contingency plans.
d. Assist the DCSLOG in developing HQDA logistic operating and management informa-
tion systems.
e. Plan tor and assist the DCSLOG in providing central direction and control of the develop-
ment and maintenance of the Army logistic system.
f. Assist the DCSLOG in maintaining surveillance ever logistic organizations and systems.
Army-wide, to assure logistic readiness.
g. Participate as the logistician in the materiel acquisition process.
h. Assist the OCSLOG in the development and evaluation of the ILS program.
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)
~ REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE bke^k^^et.no^rm
I . PQRX NUMBER |2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3 RECIPIENT'S CATSLOG NUMBER
I TlCpgRX HUMBER 2.
Zbk?T 44
4. TITLE (and S le)
Revieu operational Readiness
Float (ORF) Concept
5 TYPC OF REPORT a PERIOD COVERED
Final
6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER
7- AUTHORfF)
1 Raymond J./Astor
Robert M. /Sheaffer
8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERfs)
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK
Department of the Army, Office of the Dep- area * work unit numbers
uty Chief of Staff for Logistics, U.S. Army
Logistics Evaluation Agency, New Cumberland , Z60144
-DA 17Q70
II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS U. REPORT DATE
Department of the Army, Office of the Dep- Jun« 1377
uty Chief of Staff for Logistics, Director ^'‘VnuarpViF papes
of Supply & Maintenance, WASH, DC 20 310 number or pages
- 8 — —
U. MONITORING AGENCY NAME ft ADDRESS (If different from Controlling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS, (of thia report)
15 a DECLASSIFICATION DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE
16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thla Report)
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
[ 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abatract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)
18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
I 19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverae aide If necesaary and Identify by block number)
Operational Readiness Float
Maintenance Float
20. ABSTRACT CCartifnue an rereraa aicta ft nac earn ary and Identify by block number)
As a result of General Accounting Office (GAO) and Army Audit
Agency (AAA) reports, HQDA (DALO-SMZ-A) tasked the US Army Logis-
tics Evaluation Agency (USALEA) to review ORF policy and update
authorization criteria for Active Army, Reserve and National Guard
units. The review encompasses all commodities except aircraft,
medical and fixed communications-electronic equipment operated by
DO ,^**73 1473 EDITION OF I NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE
(Continued)
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE rWhen Data Entered)
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF This PAGEllFhen Da la Entered)
Block 20. Abstract (Continued)
the US Army Communications Command and/or US Army Security Agency.
The specific objectives addressed herein are the determination of:
1. The most effective criteria for selection of items to be
provided ORF support.
2. The most effective criteria for establishment of program
(wartime) and distribution (peacetime) requirements and authorized
levels of ORF stockage for Active Army, Reserve and National Guard
units .
3. Changes required to existing regulations to provide a
viable ORF policy.
ABSTRACT
REVIEW OPERATIONAL READINESS
FLOAT (ORF) CONCEPT
As a result of General Accounting Office (GAO) and Army
Audit Agency (AAA) reports, HQDA (DALO-SMZ-A) tasked the
US Army Logistics Evaluation Agency (USALEA) to review
ORF policy and update authorization criteria for Active
Army, Reserve and National Guard units. The review
encompasses all commodities except aircraft, medical and
fixed communications-electronic equipment operated by the
US Army Communications Command and/or US Army Security
Agency. The specific objectives addressed herein are the
determination of:
° The most effective criteria for selection of items
to be provided ORF support.
° The most effective criteria for establishment of
program (wartime) and distribution (peacetime) require-
ments and authorized levels of ORF stockage for Active
Army, Reserve and National Guard units.
° Changes required to existing regulations to provide
a viable ORF policy.
ICCfSJI » 1*
-i r
■Tit
PD5
liti trnm G
lift.' •.'•r; jem
□
j • ri; '••• '4
i
i
i rv
< . ,
*.» •v.lt* ccan
D
n
ULl^c .
Dlbfl'u;--" i (ii Blank)
Apr v'- j
Du... .
i
r
I
i
(
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
/•
CHAPTER 2.
CHAPTER 3.
CHAPTER 4 .
CHAPTER 5.
INTRODUCTION
Problem
Assumptions
Facts Bearing on the Problem .
ORF ITEM SELECTION CRITERIA
Discussion
Conclusions
Recommendations
ORF FOR GENERAL SUPPORT FORCES
Discussion
Conclusions
Recommendations
I'SAR t» ARNG ORF REQUIREMENTS
Discussion
Conclusions
Recommendations
DATA NEEDED TO UPDATE ORF FACTORS
Discussion
Conclusions
Recommendations
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
4-2
4-3
5-1
5-2
5-3
CHAPTER 6. ADEQUACY OF OR!' REQUIREMENT IN REFLECTING
REAL NEEDS AND NOT POOR SUPPLY AND
MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
Discussion 6-1
Conclusions 6-2
Recommendat ions 6-3
CHAPTER 7. LOCATION! ! F >RI STOCKAGE IN CONUS AND
OCONUS
Discussion 7-1
Conclusions 7-2
Recommendations 7-3
CHAPTER 8. ADEQUACY OF I A ORF GUIDANCE
. iscussion 3-1
Conclusions P-2
Recommendations 3-3
Page
i
iii
1-1
1-1
1-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
3-1
3-1
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
5-1
5-4
6-
6-2
7-1
7-2
7-2
3-1
8-1
8-1
i
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
CHAPTER 9.
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.
APPENDIX C.
GLOSSARY
Paragraph Page
CONSOLIDATED CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
General 9-1 9-1
ORF Item Selection Criteria (Chapter 2) . 9-2 9-1
ORF for General Support Forces (Chapter 3) 9-3 9-1
USAR and ARNG ORF Requirements (Cnapter 4) 9-4 9-2
Data Needed to Update ORF Factors
(Chapter 5) 9-5 9-2
Adequacy of ORF Requirement in Reflecting
Real Needs and Not Poor Maintenance and
Supply Procedures (Chapter 6) 9-6 9-3
Locations of ORF Stockage in CONUS and
OCONUS (Chapter 7) 9-7 9-4
Adequacy of DA ORF Guidance (Chanter 8) . 9-8 9-4
TASKING DIRECTIVES A-l
ORF STATUS AND UTILISATION REPORT R-l
REFERENCES C- 1
Glossary-1
IV
h
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1-1. PROBLEM. To review operational readiness float (ORF) policy and vali-
date or recommend changes to improve the management of ORF support.
1-2. ASSUMPTIONS.
a. Criteria for selection of items to be provided ORF support may vary by
commodity type.
b. Criteria for ORF stockage may be different for wartime and peacetime
and for CONUS and OCONUS commands.
c. Criteria for ORF requirements determination will be based on wartime
use .
d. Funding constraints and difficulty in justifying budqet requirements
will continue in the coming years and perhaps become even more stringent.
1-3. FACTS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM.
a. AR 750-1, dated May 72, prescribes current ORF policies and proce-
dures. A proposed revision is being staffed by letter, DALO-SMM-F, 14 April
1977, subject: AR 750-1, Army Materiel Maintenance Concepts and Policies.
b. Army Audit Agency (AAA) Report NF, 76-214, 26 March 1976, subject:
Maintenance Float and Direct Exchange (hereinafter referred to as the AAA
report) contains findings and recommendations of audits performed during the
period July 1974 to September 1975 at UQ, Department of the Army, USA Materiel
Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM) , USA Communications and Electronic.
Command (CERCOM) , USA Depot System Command (DESCOM) , USA Missile Materiel
Readiness Command (MIP.COM), USA Tank-Automotive Materiel Peadincss Command
(TARCOM) , and at units under tiie control of USA Forces Command (FORSCOM), USA
Training anti Doctrine Command (TRADOC) , and US Army, F.urope (USARFUR) . '.he
overall conclusions of the AAA pertaining to ORF were that:
(1) The policy concerning the criteria for selecting equipment and
units to be supported by ORF needed reevaluation.
(2) Quantities of equipment established as required for ORF were
inaccurate. Specific AAA recommendations are addressed in chapters 2 through t .
c. General Accounting Office (GAO) Report, LCD-76-442, 5 April 1977,
subject: Better Management of Spare Equipment Will Improve Maintenance
Productivity and Save the Army Millions (hereinafter referred to as the GAO
report) questions the need for about $62 million of equipment for noncombat
units and about $23 million worth of tanks and automotive-type equipment for
combat units. Specific GAO recommendations are addressed in chapters 2
through 8.
d. The Missile and Munitions Evaluation (MAME-74-75) report, April 1976,
prepared by the US Army Missile and Munitions Center and School, portrays the
worldwide status of missile and munitions logistical support in the areas of
doctrine, organization, personnel, training and materiel, including position-
ing of ORF.
1-1
e. A Study to Determine the Cost Impact of Maintenance Float, April 1976,
prepared by the US Army Materiel Maintenance Center, examines the role of ORF
in terms of its contribution to materiel readiness of the Army-in-the-field.
It identifies problem areas which inhibit float operation, determines the cost
impact of the maintenance float system, and provides recommendations for
system improvement and for more economical alternative procedures or systems.
f. An Ordnance Center and School, Maintenance Standards Study, December
1975, recommended the preparation of maintenance and repair parts consumption
planning guides for contingency operations.
£. Draft DARCOM Regulation 702- ( ), Product Assurance, Red Team/System
Assessment Program, 1 June 1976, requires each commodity command to assess and
evaluate the total performance of selected fielded systems.
h. Reserve Component units are required by the provisions of AR 220-1 to
report their unit readiness on a semiannual basis.
i. Only the Class VII items listed in Appendix C, TM 38-750 for materiel
readiness reporting are included in this review, excluding aircraft, medical
materiel and fixed communication-electronic equipment operated and maintained
by the US Army Communications Command and the Army Security Agency.
2- AR 11-11, 2 February 1976, subparagraph 2-lb(3), specifies that
"Operational readiness float is authorized for procurement and distribution to
CONUS installations for support of both Active and Army Reserve units sta-
tioned on or supported by these installations."
k. AR 71-3, 17 March 1975, prescribes the responsibilities and procedures
for initiating, planninq, programinn, conducting and reporting user testing.
i. AR 220-1, 17 March L97o, establishes procedures for reporting con, bat
readiness of units in the Army. A change is being implemented which will
assign a Readiness Ident i f icat ion Code to each line item number in each
TOE/MTOE .
m. AR 700-120, 14 March 1974, paragraph 2-5, specifies that "The Reserve
Components are not authorized ORF until mobilized."
n. AR 710-2, 1 August 1971, chapter 7, proscribes supply performance
objectives to bo attained at unit, direct support and intermediate levels of
supply.
o. AR 710-60, 1 March 1973, clarifies which factors should be used to
compute ORF requirements when more than one commodity command uses the same
equipment .
£. AR 750-37, 24 March 1971, prescribes the Army Sample Data Collection
(SDC) Program.
o. AR 750-52, 20 September 1973, provides equipment operationally ready
standards for selected Army weapon systems/equipments.
CHAPTER 2
ORF ITEM SELECTION CRITERIA
2-1. DISCUSSION.
a. Selection of items for ORF is governed by criteria which assures
optimization of materiel readiness within practicable cost limitations. AR
750-1 prescribes that items selected for ORF must be (1) mission essential;
(2) maintenance significant; and, (3) authorized maintenance support on a
repair and return to user basis, by maintenance activities below depot level,
and above the organizational maintenance level. (See glossary.)
b. AR 220-1 prescribes the procedures for reporting combat readiness of
Army units. It implements JCS Pub. 6, Vol II, Part 2, Chapter 1, Joint
Reporting Structure, Force Status and Identity Report (FORSTAT) . A number of
subjective and statistical factors are specified to evaluate the unit's
overall readiness. Significant among the factors is equipment on hand. The
quantity indicated in the "Required Column" of a unit's MTOE is measured
against the on-hand quantity, regardless of the authorized level of personnel
and equipment. This influences the overall readiness of the unit. Thus, it
is possible for a unit to have a low- readiness condition (REDCON) even though
the unit is not authorized sufficient equipment to attain a higher REDCON.
Also, all reportable items carry the same weight for all reporting units
regardless of their varying operational missions. In reality, an item which
may be mission essential to one type of unit may not be to another.
c. A change in the method of designating equipment to be reported for
readiness status has been initiated by DA. A review of the FORSTAT require-
ments revealed that the current method of designating essential equipment
does not correlate to the primary operational mission of the unit, and that i
method of assigning essentiality of an item in relation to the unit's mission
was needed. To fulfill this need, the readiness identification code concept
was developed. Every line item number (LIN) on a TOF/MTOE will be assignee- a
readiness identification code as follows:
CODE READINESS IDENTIFICATION
A Weapons and Equipment (PWF) . A major item of equipment
essential to and employed directly in accomplishment of the
unit's primary operational mission.
B Auxilary Equipment (AF.) . Items of equipment which supplement
PWE or take the place of PWE if it becomes inoperative. This
term includes equipment other than PWE, but is of greater
importance for the performance of the- unit's primary operational
mission than administrative suppiort equipment.
C Administrative Support Equipment (ASE) . Items of equipment
which are supportive of the unit's pjrimory operational mission.
d. TRADOC tested the Readiness Identif ication Code concept at Ft. Carson,
CO, Tn the Spring of 1976 by coding the LINs of nine different TOEs with the
appropriate readiness identification codes. The results of using these codes
as a source of unit readiness determination showed an improvement and meiited
2-1
adoption, Army-wide. Subsequently, TRADOC was directed to annotate all
TOEs/MTOEs with the new codes. The target date for completion of this action
is January 1978.
e. The AAA report states that the Army could save approximately $161
million in MIRCOM, CERCOM, and TARCOM by eliminating all equipment from the
ORE other than RICC-1 items. This recommendation should be deferred pending
implementation of the new readiness identification codes stated above. Upon
implementation of this coding structure, ORE requirements should be computed
and authorized only for those items of equipment with a readiness identifi-
cation code of A in the unit's MTOE . Excess equipment generated by this
change should be redistributed within each .MACOM to fill shortages, or if
not required in the MACOM, the excesses should be reported to the commodity
manager for disposition.
2-2. CONCLUSIONS.
a. Readiness identification codes clarify the term "mission-essential"
and subdivides TOE/MTOE lines into three categories.
b. The adoption of code A as the mission-essential criteria, will (1)
limit ORF support to equipment employed directly to accomplish a unit's
primary operational mission and (2) identify excess equipment which can be
redistributed .
c. The limiting of ORF support *-o RICC-1 items, as recommended by AAA., does
not consider the unit's primary ooerational mission. The use of code A
overcomes this limitation.
2-3. RECOMMENDATIONS.
a. That a comparative analysis be made of the current mission-essential
criteria versus RICC-1 and code A criteria after all TOEs/MTOEs have been
annotated with readiness identification codes. The analysis should consider
the effect on unit readiness, redistribution of excess ORF assets and procure-
ment requirements.
b. That the implementation of the A.AA recommendation be deferrei pending
the outcome of the above recommendation.
CHAPTER 3
ORE FOR GENERAL SUPPORT FORCES
3-1. DISCUSSION.
a. The AAA reports that savings in excess of $50 million would accrue by
eliminating MIRCOM, CERCOM and TARCOM-managed ORF support to General Support
Forces. (See glossary.) The AAA and GAO reports recommend elimination of
ORF support to General Support Forces.
b. Elimination of ORF support to General Support Forces would reduce ORF
requirements and result in cost savings without degrading the combat effective-
ness of the Army. General Support Forces can often adjust their work programs
and/or coordinate their equipment requirements to compensate for the elimina-
tion of currently authorized ORF support. General Support Forces units are
usually collocated with other support and/or combat units. Equipment require-
ments for a deadlined item can often be obtained on a loan basis without
degrading the readiness condition of the loaning unit. Due to the heavy
training load at service schools, they may be unable to fulfill their ORF
support requirements by the above procedures. In this event, the installation
commander should have the option of providing ORF support if the item(s) are
authorized to support a TOE STRAF unit. If a General Support Forces unit has
a valid justif ication for ORF support that can not be met by the above proce-
dures, the requirement should be forwarded to HQDA (DALO-SMD) for approval.
3-2. CONCLUSIONS.
a. The deletion of General Support Force units from Army ORF requirements
would net degrade Army combat readiness, but could degrade training conducted
in service schools.
b. Cost savings would be realized by deleting General Support Forces
from the Army ORF requirements.
c. HQDA (DALO-SMD) may authorize ORF support on an exception basis fc r
General Support Force units that submit adequate justi f ication .
3-3. RECOMMENDATIONS.
a. That General Support Forces be excluded from the computation of ORF
requirements .
b. That General Support Forces not be authorized an ORF without HQDA
(DALO-SMD) approval, except that an installation commander may authorize C RF
for a service school if an ORF is authorized to support TOE STRAF units at
the installation.
c. That equipment generated as a result of the implementation of the
above recommendations be redistributed to fill shortages.
d. That AR 750-1 be changed to incorporate these recommendations.
3-1 (3-2 Blank)
CHAPTER 4
USAR AND ARNO ORF REQUIREMENTS
4-1. DISCUSSION.
a. AR 11-11 currently authorizes the procurement of ORF requirements for
the Reserve Components, while AR 700-120 does not authorize its distribution
until the Reserve Components are mobilized. If a Reserve Component unit has a
valid peacetime justification for ORF support, HQDA (DALO-SMD) may authorize
it on an exception basis.
b. The ORF project team prepared ORF questionnaires and participated in a
joint data collection effort wi^h the Improved Maintenance Support Among Army,
ARNO, and USAR (Project 760116) Team.. From 5 May through 1R June 1976, 1 41
Active and Reserve Component activities were visited. The observations and
findings of these visits and questionnai res are as follows:
(1) Reserve Components have a limited need for all of their authorized
equipment, and hence, no real requirements for ORF. Their annual training
requirement consists of 49 unit drills and 16 days of active duty training.
With this limited usage and with other units collocated in the same geograph-
ical area, equipment is generally available for loan to units when their
equipment is unserviceable.
(2) Many Reserve Component units store their equipment in equipment
pools when they cannot store or utilize them a*- their hone stations because of
limited storage space, shortage of organizational mechanics and/or lack of
training requirements . These equipment pools are located at unit training
equipment sites (UTES) , mobilization and training equipment sites (MATES), and
equipment concentration sites (FCS).
(3) The distribution of ORF assets to the Reserve Components during
peacetime would result in definite under-utilization of equipment. It would
also require units to divert maintenance personnel to maintain the ORF.
4-2. CONCLUSIONS.
a. The procurement of CRT requirements is necessary in peacetime to
provide the ORF support that will be needed in the event of mobilization.
b. An ORF for the Reserve Components is generally not warranted in peace-
time, considering the limited usage of on-hand equipment and equipment storeo
in equipment pools.
c. HQDA (DALO-SMD) should authorize ORF support on an exception basis to
Reserve Component units that submit adequate j us t i f icat ion .
4-7. RFCOMMENDATIONS.
a. ORF requirements continue to be procured for Reserve Component units.
b. ORF assets be issued to Reserve Component units normally only when
mobi 1 i zed .
c. The use of ORF by Reserve Component units durinq peacetime be approved
by HQDA (DALO-SMD) on an exception basis when adequate justification is
submitted. ORF requests for ARNC, units should also be approved by the National
Guard Bureau (NGB) .
d. That AR 750-1 be changed to incorporate these recommendations.
4-1 (4-2 Blank)
CHAPTER 5
DATA NEEDED TO UPDATE ORF FACTORS
5-1. DISCUSSION.
a. The Army's stated requirement for about $553 million of ORF is the
ORF needed to meet mobilization requirements. It is computed as prescribed
in DCSRDA Procurement, Planning and Policy Guidance (PPPG) , dated 1 December
1975. The US Army Research Development and Acquisition Information Systems
Agency (RDAISA) computes these requirements by multiplying the ORF factors
in SB 710-1-1 (which are wartime factors developed by the various commodity
commands) by the initial issue quantity (IIQ) of the equipment in the total
Army Force. These wartime factors should not be changed solely on the basis
of peacetime ORF usage experience, since both the operational and maintenance
environments in peacetime differ from those encountered in time of war in the
following areas:
Intensity of use of equipment.
Attitudes toward use of ORF.
Availability of resources.
Priorities for the use o€ resources.
b. The principle behind utilizing a wartime factor is based on the
requXrement that the Army must be ready to mobilize on short notice. For this
reason, the Army does not compute and utilize both wartime and peacetime ORF
factors. If ORF requirements were based on peacetime factors, the Army would
not have sufficient ORF available to meet mobilization requirements.
c. The Army has not updated its wartime ORF factors since 1971, as stated
in tKe GAO report primarily because there is little need to do so every 2
years if the following procedure for determining wartime ORF factors for new
items in paragraph 7-2 of AR 750-1 is followed:
"Selection of items to be supported by maintenance float. a. The
number of line items to be autTTor i zed maintenance* float support and the
quantities of materiel used to provide such support, to include TMDE, will
be held to a minimum.
b. The maintenance support, concept included in materiel need or
other qualitative requirements documents for new materiel and the maintenance
support plan for such materiel will indicate whether or not maintenance float
support is proposed for the item.
c. In making this determination, appropriate consideration will be
given to such alternatives to maintenance float support as —
(1) The designation of modules subject to frequent failure as repair
parts or items to be supported by the direct exchange program.
(2) The use of standby equipment authorizations to support critical
systems with high availability requirements.
(3) The use of a maintenance support structure that provides for an
organizational maintenance capability in selected using units/organizations
to perform maintenance operations normally allotted to direct support mainte-
nance activities.
d. Appropriate analytical techniques and simulations will be used in
making the initial determination to provide maintenance float support and
repeated thereafter during the materiel acquisition process to assure that
this determination represents the most cost effective means of providing the
requisite degree of materiel readiness of the system equipment.
e. The determination to provide maintenance float support for a
system or equipment will be evaluated during the Expanded Service Test and
subsequent operational tests and evaluations (AR 71-3) and will be documented,
to include initial float factor and/or quantitative requirements computations,
for approval as part of the type classification action required for the
quantity procurement of the item for deployment."
d. All wartime ORF factors should be reviewed and updated when:
(1) A new item has been in the operational inventory for 2 years.
(2) The availability rates for the equipment, worldwide or specific
ma}or command, as reflected in DA level readiness reports for three reporting
periods, show a deviation from the DA standard of 5 percent or more (see
paragraph l-3q, AR 750-52).
(3) A Maintenance and Repair Parts Consumption Planning Guide for Con-
tingency Operations is prepared (see paragraph l-3f, Maintenance Standards
Study) .
e. Data to review wartime ORF factors can be obtained from:
(1) Controlled Sample Data Collection (SDC) Programs as prescribed in
AR 750-37 (paragraph l-3p) which are generally initiated for new items of
equipment.
(2) Red Team/Syster Assessment Programs tha“~ the DARCOM commodity
commands conduct to assess and evaluate total performance of selected fielded
systems .
£. ORF is identified as a separate item only in the Army Acquisition
Objective (AAO) of the Army Materiel Plan (AMF) used to compute Army initial
, wartime requirements. The AAO consists of:
Initial Issue Quantity (IIQ)
Operational Readiness Float (ORF)
Repair Cycle Float (RCF)
Operational Projects
Special Contingency
Post D-Day Consumption
Budgetary limitations generally prevent the Army from procuring sufficient
equipment to meet its authorized acquisition objectives (AAOs) in most items
of equipment. DAI.O-LEP's investigation revealed that the Army has an OFF of
about $200 million on hand, which is approximately 36 percent of its initial
wartime requirement.
g. There is no audit trail for ORF items by which they can be traced from
the initial wartime requirements in the AMF to the Major Item Distribution
Plan (MIDP) . Since the Army Supply System is a "pull" system, ORF is not
issued unless requisitioned. When ORF requisiticns are filled, theater
commanders distribute assets as they see fit. Therefore, there is no way of
5-2
knowing the quantity of ORF assets unless the MACOMs are required to report
this information. The MIDP makes bulk allocations of available assets to each
MACOM. Each MACOM determines the exact number of these limited assets that
will be used as ORF, using the following procedure prescribed in paragraph
7-17 of AR 750-1:
"Review and adjustment of levels. a. Operational readiness float
assets will be reviewed annually at all levels of command to insure that
assets are effectively used.
b. Major Amy commands will make necessary internal adjustments to
allocated operational readiness float assets by redistribution of float assets,
taking into consideration demand and usage experience and changes in densities
of equipment supported by maintenance units/activities assigned a direct
support mission.
c. Major Army commands will submit recommendations to responsible
national level materiel managers to adjust size of operational readiness float
inventories when reviews indicate that such action is required to satisfy the
80 percent ORF availability standard."
h. Maintenance Management Center (MMC) Study, April 1976, "A Study to
Determine the Cost Impact of Maintenance Floats," (paragraph l-3e) recommended
improving methods for assignment and management of float assets.
i^. On 9 June 1976, DALO-LEP, DARCOM, and MMC representatives met and
agreed that DARCOM would task MMC to initiate follow-on activities to their
study with the following objectives:
(1) Identify major user command ORF usage reports and management method:-.
(2) Recommend improvements, or standardization, of reports and manage-
ment methods.
(3) Determine if standardized major command reports can be used by DA
and DARCOM Commodity Commands for adjustment of peacetime and wartime ORf
factors, and Army-wide control of float assets.
2_. Appendix B contains the MMC report recommendation regarding the format
for an "Operational Readiness Float (ORF) Status and Utilization Report" to
be prepared annually by all MACOMs. It is similar to the current FORSCOM
report.
k. On 7 September 1976, HQPA (DALO-SML) tasked DARCOM to complete a Repa i •
Cycle Float (PCF) study by June 1977. The study includes evaluation of
mathematical methods for the establishment of RCF and ORF factors, and a survey
of user management of ORF; it may determine that changes should be made to the
proposed "Operational Readiness Float Status and Utilization Report" contained
in appendix B.
5-2. CONCLUSIONS.
a. The ORF factors in SB 710-1-1 (wartime factors developed by the
respective commodity commands) and the methodology used to compute ORF
mobilization requirements appear to be valid.
b. Compliance with regulatory guidelines for selecting items to be
supported by ORF and the updating of ORF factors provide the primary means
5-3
to determine accurate and current ORF factors. Regulatory provisions are
augmented by actions taken by some MACOMs to assist and influence the
methodology for computing and refining ORF factors. However, updating ORF
factors for items in the operational inventory every 2 years appears to be
excessive for most items.
c. A standardized annual MACOM ORF Status and Utilization Report is
needed to improve the management of ORF assets.
5-3. RECOMMENDATIONS.
a. Continue the current methodology for computing ORF factors for new
items and reviewing the factors at the end of 2 years.
b. Continue to publish ORF factors in SB 710-1-1.
c. Delete the requirement to review ORF factors every 2 years from AR
750-T and substitute the following therefor:
"(1) Maintenance float factors initially established for new items or
items that have been in the operational inventory for less than 2 years will
be reviewed after the items have been deployed for a period of 2 years.
Thereafter, these factors will be reviewed when:
(a) The availability rates for the equipment, worldwide or specific
major command, as reflected in DA level materiel readiness reports for three
reporting periods, show a deviation from the DA standard of 5 percent or more.
(b) A Maintenance and Repair Farts Consumption Planning Guide for
Contingency Operations is prepared.
(2) Data to review ORF factors will be obtained from:
(a) Controlled Sample Data Collection (SDC) Programs as prescribed
in AR 750-37 (paragraph C-2e) which are generally initiated for new items of
equipment .
(b) Red Team/System Assessment Programs that DARCOM commodity commands
conduct to assess and evaluate total performance of selected fielded systems."
d. If the RCF study, scheduled for completion in June 1977, interposes
no objections, AR 750-1 be changed to require that the "ORF Status and
Utilization Report" in appendix B be prepared annually for use by:
(1) MACOMs to manage their peacetime ORF assets.
(2) The respective commodity commands for use in editing ORF requisitions.
(3) HQDA (DAI.O-SMD) as a management tool in distributing assets.
CHAPTER 6
ADEQUACY OF ORE REQUIREMENTS IN REFLECTING REAL NEEDS
AND NOT POOR SUPPLY AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
6-1. DISCUSSION.
a. A GAO report conclusion states: "The system operates to use float
equipment as a substitute for, rather than a supplement to, a reasonable
level of performance by the field maintenance units. As a result, inefficient
maintenance and supply support are rewarded by extra float equipment."
b. If this is a valid conclusion, the practice is in violation of AR
750-1 which states: "ORE items will be issued to supported units to replace
unserviceable economically repairable items which have a replacement issue
priority of IPD (Issue Priority Designator) 1 through 8 and which cannot be
repaired by support maintenance units/activities within the maximum repair
time limits prescribed." The Army cannot afford extravagant stockage of ORF ,
but must exercise prudent management in its use at all times. It is also
recognized that the Army cannot invest in large quantities of ORF equipment
as a contingency against all supply and maintenance problems. The performance
measures and objectives listed in the following paragraphs have been estab-
lished to preclude this.
c. AR 710-2 prescribes supply performance measures and objectives to be
attained at unit, direct support, and intermediate levels of supply for:
Customer support (demand accommodations, demand satisfactions, and fill
rates); processing time (request/receipt); stockage list responsiveness (PLL
size and ASL activity); assets (stock on hand, quick supply store zero balance,
inventory accuracy, and inventory management measures); dues-in, dues-out
(zero balance with dues-out, ASL dues-in over 180 days, non-ASL dues-in over
180 days, average shortage duration, average wait for fill, and high priority
rate) .
d. DA message, 301500Z Jul 76, Materiel Maintenance Performance Measures:
(1) Prescribes materiel maintenance performance measures and objectives
for DSU/GSU (TOE & TDA) units and CONUS installations for materiel turnaround
time (TAT) , and staff-hour utilization index (SUI).
(2) States that action is being taken to define additional maintenance
performance measures and related DA objectives where appropir iate .
e. When maintenance and supply activities meet these above objectives,
peacetime ORF stockage based on demands will more accurately reflect real
needs .
f. On 1 September 1971, the Army amended MIL-M-63000C (TM) for Technical
Manuals: General Requirements for Manuscripts. It requires that all new TMs
published after that date incorporate work measurement time data for each
maintenance task listed in the Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC) for each
level of maintenance. All nev' maintenance TMs, as well as revisions to
existing manuals initiated for other reasons, will include work measurement
time data in the MACs. Numerous TMs containing this information are in the
field. Due to the magnitude of such a program, the Army does not have a
6-1
wholesale conversion program under way to provide for inclusion of this time
data in the MAC in all existing TMs. However, the Army has established an
accelerated program to provide for the development of time data on a group cf
selected items of equipment, such as the M109 Howitzer, M60A1 Tank, and other
essential items. This work measurement time data will provide the maintenance
managers with "standard staff-hours" to compute the efficiency rate.
g_. As a precedent and indication of what can be done, the Aviation
Systems Command (AVSCOM) has developed flat rate manuals for the following
helicopters: AH-1G, OH-58A, CH-47A, and UH-1H. These manuals can be used to
compute "standard staff-hours."
6-2. CONCLUSIONS.
a. AR 750-1 should be revised to require that MACOMs insure that mainte-
nance and supply activities meet the logistic objectives stated in the per-
formance measures prescribed in chapter 7, AR 710-2, and the DA message cited
in paragraph 6-ld, prior to requesting increased ORF authorizations.
b. Development of additional maintenance performance measures as indi-
cated in cited DA message will contribute valuable data to bring management
of ORF under control.
c. All TMs should include "standard staff-hours" for use in computing
the efficiency rates (ERs) performance measurement. AVSCOM’ s flat-rate
manuals for the AH-1G, OH-58A, CH-47A and UH-1H can be used as models for
this purpose.
6-3. RECOMMENDATIONS.
a. That AR 750-1 be revised to require that MACOMs insure that their
maintenance and supply activities meet the logistic objectives stated in the
performance measures prescribed in chapter 7, AR 710-2, and DA message 301500Z
Jul 76, prior to approving increased ORF authorizations.
b. That action to develop the additional performance measures as indi-
cated in paragraph 6-ld(2) be initiated.
c. That all TMs not containing "standard staff-hours” be rewritten ex-
peditiously to include them for use in computing efficiency rates (ERs).
6-2
CHAPTER 7
LOCATION (S) OE ORF STOCKAGE IN CONUS AND OCONUS
7-1. DISCUSSION.
a. Although location (s) of ORF stocks is stated as policy in AR 750-1
(para 7-6c), there is allowance for flexibility under varying circumstances.
Even so, the policy is subject to reexamination. This discussion will develop
logic to seek the optimal location (s) for ORF stocks.
b. The Missile and Munitions Evaluation Study, conducted by the US Army
Missile t* Munitions Center & School in April 1976, indicated there was wide
variation in the location of missile ORF. In CONUS, the HAWK and NIKE HERCULES
units had no appreciable ORF assets. The CHAPARRAL/VULCAN units were variable
in the number of systems on hand at the DS level; and at some installations
the float was located and maintained by the installation's post maintenance
function. In Alaska, the NIKE HERCULES ORF was located at the DS/GS company.
DS units frequently experience problems in obtaining supply and maintenance
support of the nonmissile components of the ORF. An example of this is
related to the automotive portions; i.e., tracks, drive trains and engines
for the CHAPARRAL and VULCAN self-propelled vehicles. In OCONUS areas, the
location of the missile ORF varied. In Korea, all ORF was located at the DS
unit levels for all systems. In Europe, the HAWK ORF was located entirely at
the DS le''el; the NIKE HERCULES ORF was sp>lit, with system major items as CS
and smaller items at DS; the CHAPARRAL/VULCAN ORF was exclusively at the DC
level .
c. The following observations were obtained from the ORF questionnaires
and discussions with representatives of DA and USAREUR staffs:
(1) When the ORF is located at DS level, some organizations experience
the following problems:
(a) There is a tendency not to issue ORF as property bock transact; r. ,
because the outstanding job orders and parts requisitions fer tactical item
being exchanged must be canceled and resubmitted, often with a lower priority.
(b) The additional ORF maintenance workload must be performed without
commensurate resources, chiefly manpower.
(c) Possession of the ORF inhibits mobility due to lack of prime
movers. This problem particularly affects DS units which are required to bo
100 percent mobile.
( cl ) When ORFs are located in forward support units, there is a
tendency for then' to be abused and misutilizod (e.g., subassemblies removed,
parts cannibalized).
(e) Because of the above cited problems, the ORF is not always
maintained at the level that is necessary to keep it operational.
(2) In contrast to the problems at the DS level, there do not appear to
be as many problems when the ORF is positioned at the GS level. Some of the
advantages cited were as follows:
7-1
(a) Manpower for maintenance support of the ORF is generally
available.
(b) Quality assurance/quality control is more intensively managed.
(c) Mobility considerations are not a major problem.
(d) The potential for misutili zation is low.
(e) A centralized point is established for the control, issue and
support of a large portion of the theater ORF.
(3) The positioning of the ORF at installation level appears to be the
most satisfactory location in CONUS. However, at installations which support
a division (s), there are advantages in positioning the ORF at the division
DSU. In cases where requests can be justified on an exception basis, AR
750-1 should be changed to allow the MACOM commander to authorize positioning
the ORF at the division DSU.
(4) AR 700-120 authorizes ORF for overseas units to be computed against
the required columns of the MTOE/TDA of supported units. If the theater
commander requisitions and receives this ORF, he should be authorized to
place the ORF that is not demand supported in peacetime at CSU or war reserve sites.
7-2. CONCLUSIONS.
a. In CONUS, the ORF should be located at the installation level, except
in those cases which can be justified to the MACOM commander to position it at
the division DSU level.
b. In OCONUS, the demand supported ORF should normally be positioned at
the GS level for enhanced control and improved support. Selected items should
be justified, on an exception basis, to the theater commander to be positioned
at the DSU level.
c. The theater commander should also be authorized to position nondem.and
supported ORF at either GSU or war reserve sites.
7-3. RECOMMENDATIONS. AR 750-1 be changed to permit:
a. ORF to be positioned at CONUS division DSU sites in those cases where
the action can be justified to, and approved by the MACOM commander.
b. OCONUS ORF be positioned at DSU, GSU or war reserve sites at the
discretion of the theater commander.
CHAPTER 8
ADEQUACY OF DA ORE' GUIDANCE
8-1. DISCUSSION.
a. ARs 11-11 and 700-120 contain conflicting and incomplete statements
regarding the authorization of ORF support for Reserve Component units.
b. Paragraph 2-lb(3), AR 11-11, states:
"Operational readiness float is authorized for procurement and distribution
to —
(a) CONUS installations for the support of both Active Army and Army
Reserve units stationed on or supported by these installations.
(b) US property and fiscal officers of the several State entities
for support of the Army National Guard while in an inactive (nonmobilized)
status. "
c. Paragraph 2-5, AR 700-120, states in part:
"The Reserve components are not authorized ORF until mobilized. ORF for
aircraft and aircraft related items will be computed against the Required
column of MOTE for all commands, Active and Reserve."
d. Message, DAMO-RQD, 231845Z Apr 76, subject: FY 78 POM Aircraft IIQ £/
AAOs and ORF, RCF, PTRF Rates, states in part:
"ORF and RCF will be applied to all active and reserve component TOE
units. "
e. The above statement (para 8-ld) is not reflected in ARs 11-11 and
700-120.
f. The proposed revision of AR 750-1 (para l-3a) would be improved by
the Inclusion of the changes recommended in chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of
this review.
8-2. CONCLUSIONS.
a. Conflicting and incomplete statements in ARs 11-11 and 700-120,
regarding the authorization of ORF support for Reserve Component units,
should be corrected.
b. The proposed revision of AR 750-1 should include the changes recom-
mended in chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this review.
8- 3 . RECOMMENDATIONS .
a. Revise AR 11-11, paragraph 2-lb(3), to read:
"Operational readiness float is authorized for procurement and distribution
to —
(a) CONUS installations for the support of both Active Army and Army
Reserve units (aircraft and aircraft related items only) stationed on or sup-
ported by these installations.
8-1
I
(b) US property and fiscal officers of the several State entities
for support of the Army National Guard while in an inactive (nonmobilized)
status (aircraft and aircraft related items only)."
b. Revise AR 700-120, paragraph 2-5, to read:
"The Reserve Components are not authorized ORF support until mobilized
(except for aircraft and aircraft related items). ORF for aircraft and
aircraft related items will be computed against the Required column of MTOE
for all commands, Active and Reserve."
c. The proposed revision of AR 750-1 includes the changes recommended in
chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this review.
CHAPTER 9
CONSOLIDATED CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9-1. GENERAL. This chapter contains a consolidation of the conclusions and
recommendations reached in chapters 2 through 8.
9-2. ORF ITEM SELECTION CRITERIA (CHAPTER 2).
a. Conclusions.
(1) Readiness identification codes clarify the term "mission-essential"
and subdivides TOE/MTOE lines into three categories.
(2) The adoption of code A as the mission-essential criteria, will (a)
limit OR!' support to equipment employed directly to accomplish a unit's primary
operational mission and (b) identify excess equipment which can be redistributed.
(3) The limiting of ORE support to RICC-1 items, as recommended by AAA,
does not consider the unit's primary operational mission. The use of code A
overcomes this limitation.
b . Recommendat ions .
(1) That a comparative analysis be made of the current mission-essential
criteria versus RICC-1 and code A criteria after all TOEs/MTOEs have been
annotated with readiness identification codes. The analysis should consider
the effect on unit readiness, redistribution of excess ORF assets and procure-
ment requirements.
(2) That the implementation of the AAA recommendation be deferred
pending the outcome of the above recommendation.
9-3. ORF FOR GENERAL SUPPORT FORCES (CHAPTER 3) .
a . Conclusions .
(1) The deletion of General Support Force units from Army ORF require-
ments would not degrade Army combat readiness, but could degrade training
conducted in service schools.
(2) Cost savings would be realized by deleting General Support rorces
from the Army ORF requirements.
(3) UODA (DALO-SMD) may authorize > >rf support on an exception basis for
General Support Force units that submit adequate justification.
r . Recommenda t ions .
(1) That General Support Forces be excluded from the computation of ORF
requirements .
t2) That General Support Forces not be authorized an ORF without HQDA
(DALO-SMD) approval, except that an installation commander may authorize ORF
for a service school if an ORF is authorized to support TOE STRAF units at the
installation.
9-1
(3) That equipment generated as a result of the implementation of the
above recommendations be redistributed to fill shortages.
(4) That AR 750-1 be changed to incorporate these recommendations.
9-4. USAR AND ARNG ORF REQUIREMENTS (CHAPTER 4).
a . Conclusions .
(1) The procurement of ORF requirements is necessary in peacetime to
provide the ORF support that will be needed in the event of mobilization.
(2) An ORF for the Reserve Components is generally not warranted in
peacetime, considering the limited usage of on-hand equipment and equipment
stored in equipment pools.
(3) UQDA (DALO-SMD) should authorize ORF support on an exception basis
to Reserve Component units that submit adequate justification.
b . Recommendations ■
(1) ORF requirements continue to be procured for P.eserve Component
units.
V 2 ) ORF assets be issued to Reserve Component units norma; ly only when
mobil izeu .
(3) The use of ORF by Reserve Component units during peacetime be
approved by HyDA (DALO-SMD) on an exception basis when adequate justification
is submitted. ORF requests for ARNG units should also be approved by the
National Guard Bureau (NGB) .
(4) That AR 750-1 be changed to incorporate these recommendations.
9-5 . DATA NEEDED TO UPDATE ORF FACTORS (CHAPTER 5).
a . C onclusion.s .
(1) The ORF factors in SB 710-1-1 (wartime factors developed by the
respective commodity commands) and the methodology used to compute ORF • • ; ili-
zntion requirements appear to be valid.
(2) Compliance with regulatory guidelines for selecting items to be
supported by ORF and the updating of ORF factors provide the primary means tc
let ermine accurate and current ORF f actors. Regulatory provisions are aug-
ncnted by actions taken by some MACOMs to assist and influence the methodology
eor computing and refining ORF factors. However, updating ORF factors for
iters in the operational inventory every 2 years appears to be excessive for
most items.
(3) A standardized annual MACOM ORF Status and Utilization Report is
needed to improve the management of ORF assets.
b. Recommendations.
(1) Continue the current methodology for computing orf factors for new
iters and reviewing the factors at the end of 2 years.
(2) Continue to publish ORF factors in SB 710-1-1.
(3) Delete the requirement to review ORF factors every 2 years from AR
750-1 and substitute the following therefor:
"(a) Maintenance float factors initially established for new items or
items that have been in the operational inventory for less than 2 years will
be reviewed after the items have been deployed for a period of 2 years.
Thereafter, these factors will be reviewed when:
1 The availability rates for the equipment, worldwide or specific
major command, as reflected in DA level materiel readiness reports for three
reporting periods, show a deviation from the DA standard of 5 percent or more.
2^ A Maintenance and Repair Parts Consumption Planning Guide for
Contingency Operations is prepared.
(b) Data to review ORF factors will be obtained from:
1 Controlled Sample Data Collection (SDC) Programs as prescribed in
AR 750-37 (paragraph G-2g) which are generally initiated for new’ items of
equipment.
2 Red Team/System Assessment Programs that DARCOM commodity commands
conduct to assess and evaluate total performance of selected fielded systems."
(4) If the RCF study, scheduled for completion in June 1977, interposes
no objections, AR 750-1 be changed to require that the "ORF Status and Utili-
zation Report" in appendix B be prepared annually for use by:
(a) MACOMs to manage their peacetime ORF assets.
(b) The respective commodity commands for use in editing ORF
requisitions .
(c) ilQDA (DALu-SMD) as a management tool in distributing assets.
9-6. ADEQUACY OF ORF REQUIREMENT IN REFLECTING REAL NEEDS AND NOT POOR SUPPLY
AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES (CHAPTER 6) .
a. Conclusions.
(1) \R 750-1 should be revised to require that MACOMs insure that
maintenance and supply activities meet the logistic objectives stated in the
performance measures prescribed in chapter 7, AR 710-2, and the DA message
cited in paragraph 6-ld, prior to requesting increased ORF authorizations.
(2) Development of additional maintenance performance measures as indi-
cated in cited DA message will contribute valuable data to bring management of
ORF under control.
(3) All TMs should include "standard staff-hours" for use in computing
the efficiency rates (ERs) performance measurement. AVSCOM's flat-rate
manuals for the AII-1G, OH-58A, CH-47A and L'H-111 can be used as models for this
purpose.
9-3
b.
Recommendations .
(1) That AR 750-1 be revised to require that MACOMs insure that their
maintenance and supply activities meet the logistic objectives stated in the
performance measures prescribed in chapter 7, AR 710-2, and L)A message 301500Z
jul 76, prior to approving increased ORF authorizations.
(2) That action to develop the additional performance measures as indi-
cated in paragraph 6-ld(2) be initiated.
(3) That all TMs not containing "standard staff-hours" be rewritten ex-
peditiously to include them for use in computing efficiency rates (ERs) .
9-7. LOCATION (S) OF ORF STOCKAGE IN CONUS AND OCONUS (CHAPTER 7).
a . Conclusions ■
(1) In CONUS, the ORF should be located at the installation level,
except in those cases which can be justified to the MACOM commander to position
it at the division DSU level.
(2) In OCONUS, the demand supported ORF should normally be positioned
at the OS level for enhanced control and improved support. Selected items
should be justified, on an exception basis, to the theater commander to Lie
positioned at the DSU level.
(3) The cheater commander should also be authorized to position non-
demand supported ORF at. either GSU or war reserve sites.
b. Recommendat ions . AR 753-1 be changed to permit:
(1) ORF to be positioned at CONUS division DSU sites in those rases
where the action can be justified to, and approved by the MACON commander.
(2) OCONUS ORF be positioned at DSU, GSU or war reserve sites at the
discretion of the theater commander.
9-8. ADEQUACY OF DA ORF GUIDANCE (CHAPTER 8).
a. Conclusions.
(1)
regard ing
should be
Conflictm; and incomplete statements in ARs 11-11 and 700-120,
the author i zat ion of ORF support for Reserve Component units,
corrected .
(2) The proposed revision of AR "50-1 should include the changes recom-
mended in chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this review.
b . Recommend, i 1. 1' ns .
',1) Revise AR 11-11, paragraph 2-lb (3), to read:
"Operational readiness float is authorized for procurement and
distribution to--
(a) CONUS installations for the support of both Active Army and Army
Reserve units (aircraft and aircraft related items only stationed on or sup-
ported by these installations.
9-4
(b) US property and fiscal officers of the several State entitles for
support of the Army National Guard while in an inactive ( nonmobi 1 1 zed ) status
(aircraft and aircraft related items only)."
(2) Revise AR 700-120, paragraph 2-5, to read:
"The Reserve Components are not authorized ‘ >Pf support until mobi-
lized (except for aircraft and aircraft related items). RF for aircraft and
aircraft related items will be computed against the Required column of MTOE
for all commands, Active and Reserve."
(3) The proposed revision of AR 750-1 includes the changes recommended
in chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this review.
i
APPENDIX A
CONSOLIDATED DCSLOC TASKING DIRECTIVE TO USALEA
1. TITLE : Review Operational Readiness Float Concept.
2. Froject Identification Number: Z60144.
3. PURPOSE: To review operational readiness float policy and validate authorization criteria
for Active Army, Reserve and National Guard units.
4. IOGMAP OBJECTIVE: Improve the Maintenance Management Policy of Army materiel.
5. BACKGROUND/DESCRIPTION:
a. References.
(1) CSM 74-5-73, Resources for a 16 Division Active Army (Project 16-78), 13 Aug 1974 (S) .
(2) Task Directive (Project 16-78 (Ftsources for a 16 Division Active Army)) DCSIOC,
HQDA, 27 Aug 1974 (FOUO) .
(3) AR 5-5, The Army Study System.
(4) AR 22C-1, Unit Readiness Reporting.
(5) AR 70( -170, Materiel Distribution Management.
(6) AR 710- ; , Materiel Management for Using Units, Support Units and Installations.
(7) AR 75C-1, Army Materiel Maintenance Concepts and Pclicies.
(R) AF 750-6., Equipment Operationally Ready Standards.
(9) TM !8-75U, The Army Maintenance Management System (TAMMS) .
(10) ' SAAA Audit Report NT 76-214, 26 March 1976, "Maintenance Float and Direct Exchange."
(11) Draft C AO Report, 947216- LDC-76-442 (MM-195) , 10 Sep 76, "Spare Equipment at Army-
Maintenance Activities tc Maintain Operational Readiness."
b. Sponsor. Deputy Chief of Staff for logistics, Headquarters, Department of the Army.
c. Study Agency. US A.rmy logistics Evaluation Agency will conduct the study according
to guidance contained herein or modified in process, by the study sponsor.
d. Courses of Action/Technical Approaches.
(1) Problem. To review operational readiness float p-olicy and validate or recommend
changes tc pol icp to improve the manaqenent of operational readiness float supp'ort.
(2) Objective. To determine -
(a) F.ffe-ctive criteria for the selection of items and units ‘■o 1 e provided operational
readiness float support.
(b) Procedures for computing valid requirements for operational readiness float.
APPENDIX A (Cont)
(3) Scope. The project will evaluate (a) current policy and procedures relative to
selection criteria for items and units to be provided operational readiness float support and
the computation of operational readiness float requirements; (b) CAO and USAAA proposals with
respect to these policies and procedures; and develop new or recommended changes in policies
and procedures to improve the management of operational readiness float support.
(4) Time Frame. 1976-1981.
(5) Limits.
(a) Only selected Class VII items listed in Appendix C, TM 38-750 for Materiel Readiness
reporting will be included in the study.
(b) Fixed communication - electronic equipment operated and maintained by the US Army -
Communications Command and the Army Security Agency; Army Aircraft, and Medical Materiel will
be excluded from the study.
(c) Peacetime float usage will not be the sole basis for establishing criteria.
(6) Assumptions.
(a) End items will be available for stockage in the quantities required as dete ruined by
the study.
(b) Criteria for selection may vary by commodity type.
(c) Criteria for stockage may vary among CONUS and OCONUS commands.
(d) Criteria for stockage will be based on wartime use.
(7) Essential Elements of Analysis.
(a) What changes are needed in the criteria for the selection of items to be provided
OPE support to insure adequate consideration of the impact of such support on equipmtnt
readiness?
(b) Should operational readiness float support for General Support forces be reduced or
eliminated? If yes, identify units for reduction or deletion.
(c) Is operational readiness float required for support of USAP. and NC, units? If yes,
at what level?
(d) Are equipment operationally ready standards in AP 750-52 adequate?
(e) What type data is needed frr the computation and periodic update of valid wartime OPE
requirements, and what is its availability? How can availability be improved?
(f) What changes are needed in procedures for computing OPE requirements to insure that
these requirements reflect real needs and are not a substitute for good supply and maintenance
practices?
(g) At what level should operational readiness float be stocked in CONUS and OCONUS
commands?
(h) Is current Department of the Army guidance for maintenance float policy adequate?
If not, what changes are required?
6. ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS.
a. Required date. The evaluation of GAO proposals (ref para 5a(ll)) will be- completed
by 18 October 1976.
b. LSAIEA will use its existing capabilities and resources in accomplishing the evalua-
tion.
c. The Directorate for Supply and Maintenance, ODCSLOG, HQDA, is the proponent for this
evaluation. All correspondence between USALEA and the proponent will be routed through Field
Services Branch.
d. Direct coordination with all major commands; e.g., Hf USAREUR, FORSCOM, AMC, etc., ir
author ized .
e. L’SAIEA will precare a study plan to include a milestone schedule within 30 days of
date of this directive for approval by the study sponsor.
f. Trogress reports will be submitted monthly after approval of the study plan.
g. Final dralt report will be submitted tc the project proponent NLT 1 Nov 76.
APPENDIX A (Cont)
! DISPOSITION
FORM
| for ua« of «hl« lem, ••• AR 340*13, proponent og«ncy !■ TAGCEN. 5
REFERENCE OR 0*EICE St*80L
[ SobiECT
Review Operational Readiness Float Concept (Project
DALO-SMM-F
I HAP , Issue #153)
!TO1 HRU : D/LPOS
TO: CDR, LFA
FROM
DALO-SMZ
DATE 29 Jan 1976 CMT I
I.TC Burke/f f/71343
Request you take action to com.| lete tlie project described below:
1. T1TLF : Review Operational Reaainess Float Concept.
2. Project Identification Number: Project LEAP, Issue #153.
3. PURPOSE: To identify resource savings - men, money, and materiel - to aid in
streamlining the US Army logistic system and improve readiness.
4. I.OCMAP Objective: Tmt rove the Maintenance Management Policy of Army materiel.
5. Rackground/Description:
a. References:
(1) CSM 78-5-73, Resources for a 16 Division Active Army (Project 16-78),
13 Aug 1974 (S) .
(?) Task Directive (Project 16-78 (Resources for a 16 Division Active Army))
DCS I.OG, HQDA, 27 Aug 1974 (FOUO) .
(3) AP 5-5, The Army Study System.
(4) AR 220-1, Unit Readiness Reporting.
(5) AR 7C0-120, Materiel Distribution Management.
(6) AF. 71C-2 , Materiel Management for Using Units, Support Units and Installations
(7) AP ■’50-1, Army Materiel Maintenance Concepts and Policies.
(8) AR ”50-52, Equipment Cp erationally Ready Standards.
(9) TM 38-750, The Army Maintenance Management System. (TAMMS) .
b. SPONSOR: Deputy Chief of Staff for logistics, Headquarters, Department cf the
Army.
c. STUDY AGENCY: US Army Logistics Evaluation Agency will conduct the study
according to guidance contained herein or modified in process by the study sponsor.
DA '.°,r 2496
REPLACES OD E OR M U, WHICH IS OBSOLETE
OGPO 1976-665 422 1061
4
APPENDIX A (Cont)
DALO-SMM-F 29 Jan 197*
SUBJECT: Review Operational Readiness Float Concept (Project LEAP, Issue #153)
d. Courses of Action/Technical Approaches.
(1) PROBLEM: To review operational readiness float policy and validate authorization
criteria.
(2) OBJECTIVE: To determine the most effective criteria for:
(a) Selection of items to be provided operational readiness float support.
(b) Establishment of levels of operational readiness float stockage by Active Army,
Reserve, and National Guard units.
(3) SCOPE: The study will evaluate criteria for (a) selection of end items for opera-
tional readiness float support and (b) establishment of operational readiness float levels:
determine the manpower and materiel costs of current programs; and develop criteria for item
selection and stockage based on equipment reliability which will assure operational readiness
of Army units in the most economical manner.
(4) TIME FRAME: 1976-1981
(5) LIMITS:
(a) Only selected Class VII items listed in Appendix C, TM 38-750 for Materiel Readiness
reporting will be included in the study.
(b) Fixed communications - electronic equipment operated ar.d maintained by the US Army
Communications Command and the Army Security Agency, as well as medical materiel, will b<
excluded from the study.
(c) Peacetime float usage will not be the sole basis for establishing criteria.
(6) ASSUMPTIONS:
(a) End items will be available for stockage in the quantities required as determined by
the study.
(b) Criteria for selection may vary by commodity type.
(c) Criteria for stcvkage may vary among CONUS and OCONUS commands.
(d) Criteria for stockage will be based on wartime use.
(7) ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF ANALYSIS:
(a) Is current Department of the Army guidance for maintenance float policy adequate?
If not, what changes are required?
(b) At what level should operational readiness float be stocked in CONUS commands?
(c) At what level should operational readiness float be stocked in OCONUS commands?
(d) Is operational readiness float required for supipx>rt of USAF and NG units? If yes,
at what level?
A- 5
APPENDIX A (Cont)
(e) Should operational readiness float support for General Support forces be reduced or
eliminated? If yes, identify units for reduction or deletion.
(f) What type of data is needed for periodic update of ORF factors, and what is its
availability?
6. ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS
a. Required date. The evaluation will be completed by 30 September 1976.
b. USAIEA will use its existing capabilities and resources in accomplishing the evaluation.
c. The Directorate for Supply and Maintenance, ODCSLOG, HQDA , is the proponent for this
evaluation. All correspondence between USALEA and the proponent will be routed through Field
Services Branch.
d. Direct coordination with all Major Commands, e.g., HQUSAREUR, FORSCOM, AMC , etc, is
authorized.
e. USALEA will prepare a study plan to include a milestone schedule within 30 days cf
date of this directive for approval by the study sponsor.
f. Progress reports will be submitted monthly after approval of the study plan.
g. Final report will be submitted tc the study proponent NLT 11 October 197f .
FCP THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS:
/s/ R. H. Thompson
RICHARD H. THOMPSON
Major General, GS
Director of Supply
and Maintenance
APPENDIX A (Cont)
DALO-LEZ-A (29 Jan 76)
SUBJECT: Review Operational Readiness Float Concept
THRU DALO-SMM-F FROM USALEA
TO DALO-SMZ
(Project LEAP, Issue #153)
DATE 16 Mar 76 CMT 2
Mr Graham/rms/600fi
1. As requested in paragraph 6e , Comment 1, attached at inclosure 1 is the proposed study
plan including milestones for conduct of subject project. The delay in submission of the
study plan was mutually agreed to by the Chief, DAIO-SMM-F and Mr. J. Graham, LEA during a
telephone discussion concerning the project.
2. The status of the project and proposed plan was briefed to MG Thompson on 11 Marc!) 1976
during his visit to LEA. At that time, MG Thompson expressed two concerns:
a. The number of man-months of effort required and the total time to do the iroject.
b. The use of Appendix C, TM 38-750 as a baseline for selecting equipment to be included
in the study.
MG Thompson was informed that LEA would take a closer look at both areas.
3. Recommend that the study plan be approved. If necessary, adjustments to time frame or
project content can be made during PAG IFF.
1 Inc)
as (6 cofies)
signed
JAMES L. HUDSON
Colonel, OS
Commanding
DALO-SMM-F (29 Jan 76)
SUBJECT: Review Operational Readiness Float Concept (Project LEAP, Issue #153)
TO USALEA FROM DALO-SMZ DATE 27 Apr 1976 CMT 3
Mr Wilson/f f/55546
Revised project plan, forwarded to H£DA (DALO-SMM-F) informally, 20 April 1976, is
approved. Covet page of the revised plan should be amended to indicate the date of
revision.
FOP THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOP LOGISTICS:
/S/ P . H . Thompson
wd all incl RICHARD H. THOMPSON
Major General, GS
Director of Supply
and Maintenance
A- 7
APPENDIX A (Cont)
DALO-SMM-F Review Operational Readiness Float Concept (Project
LEAP, ISSUE #153)
XXTHRU: DALO-RDZ-A FROM DALO-SMZ-A DATE 5 Oct 1976 CRT 1
TO: CDR, LEA Mr. Wilson/wc/55546
1. Reference is made to DF, DALO-SMM-F, 29 Jan 76, SAB.
2. Referenced DF is amended as follows:
a. Paraqraph 3. Change to read as follows: PURPOSE: To review operational readi-
ness float policy and validate authorization criteria for Active Army, Reserve and
National Guard Units.
b. Paraqraph 5a. Add the following references:
(10) USAAA Audit Report NT "'6-214, 26 March 1976 , "Maintenance Float and Tirect Exchange
(11) Draft GAO Report, 947216-LDC-76-442 (MM-195), 10 Sep 76, "Spare Equipment at Army
Maintenance Activities to Maintain Operational Readiness."
c. Paragraph 5d. Change subparaqraphs as indicated:
(1) PROBI£M: To review operational readiness float policy and validate or recommend
chanqes to policy to improve the management of operational readiness float support.
(2) OBJECTIVE: To determine -
(a) Effective criteria for the selection of items anc units to be provided operational
readiness float support.
(b) Procedures for computing valid requirements for operational readiness float.
(3) SCOPE: The project will evaluate (a) current policy and procedures relative to
selection criteria for items and units to be provided operational readiness float support
and the computation f operational readiness float requirements; (b) CAC and USAAA
proposals with xespect t< these policies and procedures; and develop r ew or recommended
change in rolicies and procedures to improve the management of operational readiness
float support.
(5) I IM1TS:
(b) ’ : communication - electronic equipment operated and maintained by the US
Army - miminicat i on : mmard and the Army Security Agency; Army Aircraft, and Medical
‘"ateriel will be excluder from the study.
(7) p "iti.il Elements or Analysis: Change subparagraph (f) and add subparagraphs
(q) and (h) as follows;
(f) What type data is needed for the computation and periodic update of valid wartime
'■RE requirements, and what is its availability? How can availability be improved?
(g) What changes are needed in procedures for computing ORE requirements to insure
that these requirements reflect real needs and are not a substitute for good supply ar.d
maintenance practices?
(h) What changes are needed in the criteria for the selection of items to be provided
OPF support to insure adequate consideration of the impact of such support on equipment
readiness?
«
APPENDIX A (Cont)
CALO-SMM-F
SUBJECT: Review Operational Readiness Float Concept (Project LEAP, ISSUE #153)
d. Paragraph 6a. Change tc read: "Required date. The evaluation of GAO proposals
(ref para 5a (ID) will be completed by 18 October 1976.
e.
project
Paragraph
proponent
6g. Change to read:
NLT 1 Nov 76.
"Final Draft report will be submitted to the
/S/ R. H. Thompson
RICHARD H. THOMPSON
Major General, GS
Director of Supply and Maintenance
A- 9
(A-10 Blank)
APPENDIX B
ORF STATUS AND UTILIZATION REPORT
B-l . GENERAL. Letter, PRXMD-KS , 24 November 1976 , subject: ORF of Army
Equipment, recommended that the CPF Status and Utilization Report (fig B-l L<
prepared annually by each MACON. It is basically the form now used by FOFSCCfi
but has been changed to reflect other commands' requirements. Costing data has
been eliminated as unnecessary tc fulfill ORF management requirements at flu
major command level. NICP personnel can retrieve cost data f ror files when
desired .
P-2 . INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF ORF STATUS AND UTILIZATION REPORT.
a. LIME column - Inter number of the transaction: e.g., enter a "3" if it
is the third I, IN on the sheet.
b. Column a - Enter LIN and MSN for each item in CP.F or authorized as OFF.
c. Column b - Enter nomenclature and model; e.q., tank, M60A1, in accord-
ance with SB 700-20.
d. column c - Enter total quantity of the item supported by the command/
installation; exclude float ir.d war reserve.
e. Column d - Enter total at proved OFT based on last report .
f_. Column e - 1 1 : ■ t • ■ r ORF factor computed from SB 710-1-1 or AP 750-1 ii.lt t-
rat in;. Use of AR 750-1, appendix L, for computations of OFT factor will b<
indicated by an asterisk.
. Column f - Enter total quantity of the iter: that is ir ORF resent .
h. Column g - Enter total demands for the float item for the reportin
12-month period. Ir cor pv ting demands, all items qualifying for float »*>-ch.T- •
in accordance with paragraph 7-9, AR 750-1, will be counted as demands.
i. Column h - Enter total number of times ORF stock was issued fer tit
12-month rep'ort period.
i. Column i - Enter the percentage cf demands that were filled frer
authorized ORF (col h - col g X 100) .
k. Column j - Enter average monthly demands (col r. f 12).
l. Column k - Fnter average turnaround time in months (tetal time beg innit <:
v *th receipt of unscrviecal li item and ending with return t< C'PF stock) .
Figures in this column should be submitted in months or portions thereof.
m. Column 1 - Fr.tex quartity needed in OFT based upon demands ard avera *r
turnaround time (col j X col k).
a. Column it - Enter excess items (equal to col d minus col 1).
Column n - Fr.ter appropriat* remarks such as requisition number for OFT
shortages, actual number of months Item was in the float, < tc. Entries in
remarks column will be keyed tr applicable line entries above.
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PI RECT1VES AND I NSTRUCTI ONS (DODI)
DODI 4000.19, Basic Policies and Principles for Interservice, Interdepart-
mental, and Interagency Support, 27 November 1972.
DODI 4140.42, Determination of Initial Requirements for Secondary Item Spare
and Repair Parts, 7 August 1974.
ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF MEMORANDUM
CSM 75-5-73, Resources for a 16 Division Active Army (Project 16-78), 13 August
1974 (S) .
ARMY REGU ILATI ON S
AR 1-1, Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Within the DA, 25 May 1976.
AR 1-35, Administration, Basic Policies, and Principles for Interservice ,
Interdepartmental, and Interagency Support, 29 June 1973.
AR 5-5, The Army Study System, 26 June 1974.
AR 5-8, Host-Supported Activity Relationship (Interservice), 15 January 1974.
AR 5-9, Management, Intraservice Support, Installation Area Coordination,
1 October 1975.
AR 11-11, Army Programs, Major Command Stockage Levels Worldwide (U) , 18 Nay
1975.
AR 71-3, Force Development User Testing, 17 March 1975.
AR 130-400, Army National Guard, Logistical Policies for Support, 9 December
1971.
AR 140-15, Army Reserve, Maintenance of Equipment, 3 February 1973.
AR 220-1, Unit Readiness Reporting, 17 March 1975.
AR 700-120, Materiel Distribution Management, 14 March 1974.
AR 710-2, Materiel Management for Using Units, Support Units, and Installations,
1 August 1971.
AR 710-3, Asset and Transaction Reporting System, 18 September 1972.
AR 710-60, Standard Study Number System and Replacement Factors, 1 March 1973.
AR 750-1, Army Materiel Maintenance, Concepts, and Policies, 1 May 1972.
AR 750-4, Maintenance of Supplies and Equipment, 2 June 1976.
R
c-i
AR 750-7, Maintenance of Supplies and Equipment, Installation Support Mainte-
nance Activities, 27 May 1976.
AR 750-37, Sample Data Collection, The Army Maintenance Management System
(TAMMS), 24 March 1971.
AR 750-52, Equipment Operationally Ready Standards, 20 September 1973.
SUPPLEMENTS TO ARMY REGULATIONS
USAREUR Supplement 1 to AR 750-1, Maintenance of Supplies and Equipment,
18 March 1976.
FORSCOM Supplement 1 to AR 750-1, Maintenance of Supplies and Equipment,
2 November 1973.
TRADOC Supplement 1 to AR 750-1, Maintenance of Supplies and Equipment,
20 November 1974.
DA MESSAGE
DAMO-RQD, 231845Z Apr 76, subject: FY 78 POM Aircraft IIQs/AAOs and ORF, RCF ,
PTRF Rates.
DALO-SMM-F, 311500Z Jul 76, subject: Materiel Maintenance Performance Measures.
DA DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION
Procurement, Planning, and Policy Guidance, 1 December 1975.
IG - AAA AUDIT REPORTS
IGAA-SOD, 14 November 1974, subject: Audit of Maintenance Float, US Army
Missile Command, Audit Report SO 75-19.
AAA Audit Report SO 75-26, 9 January 1975, subject: ORF, US Army Infantry
Center, Fort Benning, GA.
AAA Audit Report MV/ 75-51, 21 March 1975, subject: ORF Equipment III Corps
and Fort Hood, TX.
AAA Audit Report NE 75-54, 28 April 1975, subject: Commodity Command Func-
tional Audit, Maintenance Float and Direct Exchange, US Army Tank Automotive
Command, Warren, MI.
AAA. Audit Report NE 75-68, 30 June 1975, Maintenance Float, US Army Electronics
Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ.
AAA Audit Report NE 76-214, 26 March 1976, subject: Maintenance Float and
Direct Exchange.
USOAO REPORTS
USGAO Draft Report 947216-LCD-76-442 (MAI-195), 10 September 1976, subject:
Improvements Needed in Computing the Requirements for Spjare Equipment at Army
Maintenance Activities to Maintain Operational Readiness.
C-2
USGAO Report, LCD-76-442, 5 April 1977, subject: Better Management of Spare
Equipment Will Improve Maintenance Productivity and Save the Army Millions.
STUDIES, EVALUAT I ONS_ AND TASKING DIRECTIVES
USAMMC Study, April 1976, subject: A Study to Determine the Cost Impact of
Maintenance Floats.
USAOC&S Study, December 1975, subject: Maintenance Standards Study.
USAM&MC&S , April 1976, subject: Missile and Munitions Evaluation (MAME-74/75)
Final Report.
Letter, DRC'MM-MS , 28 Jun 1976, subject: ORF of Army Equipment.
Letter, DRCMM-M , 1 September 1976, subject: ORF of Army Equipment.
Letter, DRXMD-MS , 20 Se[ tenber 197f, subject: ORF of Army Equipment.
Letter, DRXMD-MS, 24 Novt mb< r 1976, subject: ORF of Army Equipment.
MILITARY SPECIF I CAT1 ONE
MIL-M-6 3000C (TM) , Amendment 1, 1 September 1971, subject: Technical Manuals:
General Requirements for Manuscripts.
US ARMY FIELD MANUALS
FM 29-25 Direct Exchange, Shop Supply, and Operational Readiness Float Proce-
dures, March 1972.
US ARMY TECHNICAL MANUALS
TM 38-750, The Army Maintenance Management System (TAMMS), 21 November ln72.
DEPARTMENT OF ThE ARMY SUPPLY BULLETINS
SB 710-1-1, Standard Study No. (SSK) Master File Cross Reference Index, April
1976.
SB 700-20, Army Adopted/Other Item Selected for Authorization/List of Report-
able Items, January 1976.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD REGULATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS
NGR 350-1, Army National Guard, Training, 31 October 1975.
NCR 750-1, Army National Guard, Maintenance of Supplies and Equipment, 1 July
1969.
C-3
HEADQUARTERS US ARMY MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT AND READINESS COMMAND
Draft DARCOM Regulation 702- , Product Assurance, Red Team/System Assessment
Program, 1 June 1976.
US ARMY AVIATION SYSTEMS COMMAND - FLAT RATE MANUALS
Helicopter Publication Date
AH-1G Volumes 1 and 2 July 1973
Final Report for Period
1 July 1970 - 1 July 1974 September 1976
Volume 1 July 1973
Final Report for Period
1 January 1970 - 31 December 1973 March 1976
CH-47A Volumes 1 and 2 December 1974
UH-1H Volumes 1 and 2 July 1975
AMC PAMPHLETS (AMCP)
AMCP 750-6, Maintenance of Supplies and Fquipment, Techniques for Determining
Optimal Operational Readiness Float, June 1971.
AMCP 750-7, Techniques for Determining Repair Cycle Float, June 1971.
JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF PUBLICATIONS
JCS Pub 6, Volume II, Part 2, Chapter 1, Joint Reporting Structure, Force
Status, and Identity Report (FORSTAT).
GLOSSARY
General Support Forces. Units having Force Stratum Codes Yl, Y3, Z1 and 73 in
the Structure and Composition System (SACS) Force listing used to prepare the
Army Materiel Plan (AMP) .
Maintenance Float. A quantity of selected end items or major components of
equipment authorized fur replacement of like items evacuated from using
activities for scheduled depot maintenance or the performance of other mainte-
nance operations which cannot be accomplished in a timely manner. There are
two types of maintenance float authorized — operational readiness float (ORF)
and repair cycle float (RCF ) .
Operational Readiness Float (ORF). A quantity of selected end items or
major components of equipment authorTzed for stockage at CONUS installations
and overseas support maintenance activities to extend their capability to
respond to the materiel readiness requirements of supported activities. This
is accomplished by providing supported activities with serviceable replacements
from ORF assets when like items of equipment of supported activities cannot be
repaired or modified in time to meet operational requirements.
Repair Cycle Float (RCF) . An additional quantity of selected end items or
major components of equipment approved for stockage in the wholesale sup; ly
system to replace like items of equipment withdrawn from using activities f< r
scheduled depot maintenance or, in the case of aircraft, the depot maintenance
of crash-damaged equipment. This float is used primarily to extend the ecoi o'
service life of selected items of Army materiel by providing f< r their depot
maintenance on a timely basis without detracting from, the materiel readiness
of using activities. (As stated in proposed revision of AR 750-1.)
Maintenance Significant Equipment. An end item, assemblage, component, 01
system proposed or intended for Issue to the Army in the field, the mainte-
nance support concept which envisions the performance of corrective maintenance
services on a recurring basis.
Mission-Essential Materiel . Materiel authorized and assigned to approved
combat and combat support f rces which would be immediately employed to
destroy the enemy or his capacity to continue war; provide battlefield
protection of personnel; communicate under war conditions; detect, locate,
or maintain surveillance over the enemy; and permit contiguous combat trans-
portation and support of men and materiel. Equipment assigned to training
missions that is of the same type and configuration as that assigned to
combat and combat support forces and designated to be immediately employed
for the purposes enumerated above is also mission-essential materiel.